Seeing as the answers you linked are primarily justified by the Old Testament, I assume you don't really understand Christian Theology.
In the NT, the only reference to homosexuality is found in Romans which has two key elements: (a) it's not spoken by Jesus and (b) can be interpreted as a criticism of sexual promiscuity in general.
Christianity does not explicitly regard homosexuality as sinful or detestable. There are openly gay ministers in the Lutheran and Anglican churches, for example.
> Seeing as the answers you linked are primarily justified by the Old Testament, I assume you don't really understand Christian Theology.
They understand it just as well as the leadership and followings of multiple major denominations. Citing this would be an insult to the intelligence of everyone here.
> Christianity does not explicitly regard homosexuality as sinful or detestable.
What do you mean by 'Christianity' in this context? Some denominations consider homosexuality sinful and detestable and some does not. Are you going to argue that the ones you disagree with are not 'True Christians'?
I think any group of people that fuels hatred and vitriol by definition can't be Christian. The KKK, for example, have traditionally been a "Christian" group. Do I consider them to be Christian? Absolutely not. Do you?
The bottom line is that a scripture which states that homosexuals shall be killed and you are allowed to beat your slaves to death, is a bad moral compass. Of course many groups have found ways to interpret this scripture in more benign ways, but the scripture itself is pretty hateful.
Sure you can always cherry pick the things you like and discard the rest, but then you are using another moral compass to direct the picking. E.g if you discard the OT then you also discard the ten commandments. But people tend to think it is still wrong to murder and steal, so then end up picking some of the rules in the OT but ignoring others. "Love your neighbor" is from the OT also, btw.
You're decontextualizing the OT "love thy neighbor" which is from Leviticus and is in the context of the Jewish culture (at least quote the whole sentence). The NT "love thy neighbor" is fundamentally different.
I'd get into more detail, but without the theological background, you simply won't get it.
If you look only at Jesus' teachings (and the New Testament more generally), it's logically absurd to come to your conclusion that the Scripture is hateful. But hey, keep quoting ancient Jewish law that made it into Biblical canon.
NT Jesus states that the "ancient Jewish law" remains valid forever, so if you are going to disregard OT laws, you also have to cherry pick and disregard Jesus quotes you find inconvenient.
> NT Jesus states that the "ancient Jewish law" remains valid forever, so if you are going to disregard OT laws, you also have to cherry pick and disregard Jesus quotes you find inconvenient.
This is addressed specifically in Acts 15. The ancient Jewish law continued to apply to Jewish Christians, but not to Gentile Christians.
Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+5&versi...
Trivializing its exegesis (and hermeneutic) doesn't do anyone any good, least of all your point. And you ignore the social and historical contexts: Jesus was speaking to Jews and probably didn't want to alienate them so his wording may have been political. Not to mention that Acts 15 explicitly addresses your point: it's very clear that Gentile Christians do NOT have to abide by Jewish (Mosaic) Law:
> Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
(.. and a few verses down ..)
> Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
What we have is a simple contradiction between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Jesus was a strongly religious Jew, so it is not surprising that he considered the mosaic law God-given and eternal. Paul on the other hand wanted to convert non-Jews, and then the mosaic law was a hindrance. Obviously Paul won, which leaves some inconvenient quotes by Jesus, which theologians then have to work hard to explain away.
My point is this: Scripture is a really terrible "moral compass" because due to contradictions like these you have to use your own value judgement to decide what is really the correct interpretation. For example if Mosaic law is brought up you can claim that Paul overruled Jesus and did away with Mosaic law. And if Pauls denigration of women is brought up you can say that this was only Paul, Jesus never said such a thing.
In order to explain away the inconvenient quote you say maybe Jesus he was political and didn't want to alienate his audience. Problem is, you can explain away any quote that way. Maybe Jesus didn't really think we should love our neighbor, he just didn't want to alienate the audience.
And take this quote by Jesus: If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14%3A26&ve...
Here Jesus is clearly preaching hate. So you can take away a message of love from the bible, but you can just as well take away a message of hate. That is not a good moral compass.
> What we have is a simple contradiction between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul.
What we have here is you not applying the Principe of Charity and accepting the fact that Jesus was saying the things he was in a certain social and historical context. I don't know why you insist on approaching a religious text as a logic textbook.
> My point is this: Scripture is a really terrible "moral compass" because due to contradictions like these you have to use your own value judgement to decide what is really the correct interpretation.
Coming from someone that has studied ethics, I can assure you that most ethical theories rely on value judgments at some point down the line. If this is your only criticism, the ethical theories of the Bible share many similarities with many non-religious theories as well. Sure, maybe Christian ethical theory is not as strong as something like Kantian ethics of duty, but we're splitting hairs here. Is it maybe a sub-optimal moral compass? Sure, but a moral compass nonetheless.
> If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
I'm trying to be as charitable as possible here, but you are grossly overreaching. There are literally dozens of explanations of the above quote on the internet, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-26.htm. The translation also doesn't quite capture the fact that "hate" should probably be "loves less" or, more correctly, "honors less" or "treat with less affection."
I actually fully agree with you that the quotes - and really everything in the Bible - should be understood in its social and historical context. I think the trouble arises when someone tries to take scripture out of the contexts and treat them as some kind of universal moral guideline. This is what I am protesting. The cultural contexts of Jesus and Paul (not to mention the many other authors in the Bible) are quite different and they have quite different agendas. If you try to combine them into a single message, you will gets lots of contradictions.
Any group that says it's Christian is Christian. Otherwise, we have one group of True Christians dictating to everyone what their faith must consist of. We Americans fought a revolution in order to found a country where that could not happen. Do you think it should be allowed to happen?
Yet the OT is still in valid effect. Most of the Christian rules - the "613 mitzvot" as known in Judaism, where they are more significant what with Jewish identity focusing on lineage from the Israelites, but still many of them valid by Christian denominations even if mostly shortened to just the 10 in mainstream discourse - are derived from the OT.
Christianity has many more figures than Jesus, so this in of itself is not convincing. In addition, "can be interpreted as" is weasel wording and the whole problem to begin with.
Furthermore, that some denominations do not regard it as sinful does not mean that it is Biblically the case. We must concur there is such a thing as heterodoxy. Since Christianity regards all humans as being intrinsically sinful, it may be the case some denominations do not consider homosexuality grave enough a sin to deny them becoming ministers, provided of course they suppress their sinful urges as is customary to the religion.
In the NT, the only reference to homosexuality is found in Romans which has two key elements: (a) it's not spoken by Jesus and (b) can be interpreted as a criticism of sexual promiscuity in general.
Christianity does not explicitly regard homosexuality as sinful or detestable. There are openly gay ministers in the Lutheran and Anglican churches, for example.